Quickie on W7

If 1) a DVD is limited to standards of 4G, and not one byte more, and
2) MS W7 surely does come, as distributed, on one, within such
standards expressed as storage, a DVD well might be expected to
comprise, 3) how, perforce, then am I then to account for a standard
installation in excess of 20 gigabytes, indeed -- commonly expressed
and expected to quantify by 30 gigabytes -- without my veritable mind
boggling?

On Wed, 04 Jun 2014 14:38:23 -0400, Flasherly wrote:

If 1) a DVD is limited to standards of 4G, and not one byte more, and
2) MS W7 surely does come, as distributed, on one, within such
standards expressed as storage, a DVD well might be expected to
comprise, 3) how, perforce, then am I then to account for a standard
installation in excess of 20 gigabytes, indeed -- commonly expressed
and expected to quantify by 30 gigabytes -- without my veritable mind
boggling?

They have this thing called compression and most of the files are
compresses before installation. The installation expands them into
their desired places.

--
Faster, cheaper, quieter than HS2
and built in 5 years;
UKUltraspeed http://www.500kmh.com/

Rodney Pont wrote:
On Wed, 04 Jun 2014 14:38:23 -0400, Flasherly wrote:

If 1) a DVD is limited to standards of 4G, and not one byte more, and
2) MS W7 surely does come, as distributed, on one, within such
standards expressed as storage, a DVD well might be expected to
comprise, 3) how, perforce, then am I then to account for a standard
installation in excess of 20 gigabytes, indeed -- commonly expressed
and expected to quantify by 30 gigabytes -- without my veritable mind
boggling?

They have this thing called compression and most of the files are
compresses before installation. The installation expands them into
their desired places.


The initial phase of installation is a bit on the slow
side, due to the time taken to decompress the files.

And even if you stage the Win7 ISO on a USB key
(using the MicrosoftStore tool), it still works
at roughly the same speed. So the decompression
is the rate-limiting step.

Paul

On Wed, 04 Jun 2014 16:04:14 -0400, Paul wrote:

And even if you stage the Win7 ISO on a USB key
(using the MicrosoftStore tool), it still works
at roughly the same speed. So the decompression
is the rate-limiting step.

Rats. (Will a SSD be faster? )

On Wed, 04 Jun 2014 16:37:00 -0400, Flasherly
wrote:

On Wed, 04 Jun 2014 16:04:14 -0400, Paul wrote:

And even if you stage the Win7 ISO on a USB key
(using the MicrosoftStore tool), it still works
at roughly the same speed. So the decompression
is the rate-limiting step.

Rats. (Will a SSD be faster? )

I guess max speed might be obtained by first (somehow) decompressing
all the information from the 4 GB DVD to the 20+ GB SSD, then the
installation could go at the speed at which the SSD could be read....
or the speed at which the device you were installing "to" could be
written.
With SSD prices falling, does this mean we might see Win 9 or 10 being
offered on a SSD rather than a DVD?

On Wed, 04 Jun 2014 16:35:19 -0500, Charlie Hoffpauir
wrote:

I guess max speed might be obtained by first (somehow) decompressing
all the information from the 4 GB DVD to the 20+ GB SSD, then the
installation could go at the speed at which the SSD could be read....
or the speed at which the device you were installing "to" could be
written.
With SSD prices falling, does this mean we might see Win 9 or 10 being
offered on a SSD rather than a DVD?

Between USB3 and SSDs, things are definitely spiffy.

There're niche SDD's now mounted into the PCI-E card slot. Invariably
on a MB, one if two regular PCI slots, (usually that subset, micro-PCI
slot thingy), yet almost all MBs sold now are graphic-equipped,
chipped Nobody, except gammers, apparently buys a graphic board
anymore.

Coupled with USB3 flashsticks, latest fast MB architecture for a SSD
-- add 4 or 8 cores and and predictive archival/compression
programming to utilize all those cores (the difficult part,
notoriously so) -- people will have to keep a bucket of water handy to
pour over those NAND particles heating up and going cherry from
sustained 130MB/s transfer rates.

(No such luck here - if I run NAND-to-NAND transfers on a same SSD,
it's hardly appreciable. Might as well be copying between platter
HDDs. USB2 in the other regard and no help there, either. Do have
another SSD on the way, though noway I can't see indulging one
computer with two such drives -- both SSD's will go to two computers
for quick-PwrUp/boot, fast program respose purposes.)

On 2014-06-04, Flasherly wrote:
On Wed, 04 Jun 2014 16:35:19 -0500, Charlie Hoffpauir
wrote:

I guess max speed might be obtained by first (somehow) decompressing
all the information from the 4 GB DVD to the 20+ GB SSD, then the
installation could go at the speed at which the SSD could be read....
or the speed at which the device you were installing "to" could be
written.
With SSD prices falling, does this mean we might see Win 9 or 10 being
offered on a SSD rather than a DVD?

Between USB3 and SSDs, things are definitely spiffy.

There're niche SDD's now mounted into the PCI-E card slot. Invariably
on a MB, one if two regular PCI slots, (usually that subset, micro-PCI
slot thingy), yet almost all MBs sold now are graphic-equipped,
chipped Nobody, except gammers, apparently buys a graphic board
anymore.

Coupled with USB3 flashsticks, latest fast MB architecture for a SSD
-- add 4 or 8 cores and and predictive archival/compression
programming to utilize all those cores (the difficult part,
notoriously so) -- people will have to keep a bucket of water handy to
pour over those NAND particles heating up and going cherry from
sustained 130MB/s transfer rates.

(No such luck here - if I run NAND-to-NAND transfers on a same SSD,
it's hardly appreciable. Might as well be copying between platter
HDDs. USB2 in the other regard and no help there, either. Do have
another SSD on the way, though noway I can't see indulging one
computer with two such drives -- both SSD's will go to two computers
for quick-PwrUp/boot, fast program respose purposes.)

You need to add the time for at least 140+ win7 updates after the
initial win7 w/sp1 install.........took it longer for the updates than
the initial install on Oct 2013 even if the win7 had the sp1 streamed
in. Believe that there are more "updates" for win7 now......

On 04 Jun 2014, lew
wrote in alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt:

You need to add the time for at least 140+ win7 updates after the
initial win7 w/sp1 install.........took it longer for the updates
than the initial install on Oct 2013 even if the win7 had the sp1
streamed in. Believe that there are more "updates" for win7
now......

Or you could use WSUS Offline Update to gather most or all the updates
in advance, so you don't have to spend time during the install doing
it.

http://www.wsusoffline.net/

On Thu, 5 Jun 2014 01:22:44 +0000 (UTC), lew
wrote:

You need to add the time for at least 140+ win7 updates after the
initial win7 w/sp1 install.........took it longer for the updates than
the initial install

ohhhh myyyyy gawddddd

make those updates mandatory and I'm off to *nix, (or sticking mo' w/
an un-updated xp/sp1 if I can't proficiently speak in WINE).

On 2014-06-05, Nil wrote:
On 04 Jun 2014, lew
wrote in alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt:

You need to add the time for at least 140+ win7 updates after the
initial win7 w/sp1 install.........took it longer for the updates
than the initial install on Oct 2013 even if the win7 had the sp1
streamed in. Believe that there are more "updates" for win7
now......

Or you could use WSUS Offline Update to gather most or all the updates
in advance, so you don't have to spend time during the install doing
it.

http://www.wsusoffline.net/

It was a "clean" install & there was no option to do the updates
offline as the "install" just went to get the updates as part of the
update process.

Offline updates still meant needing to install lots of updates unless
one knew what what each "kb*" is doing which meant spending
more time to lookup the kb* indo.